Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.

I've spent fairly long periods of time relying on my spouse for financial support.

She just says "Well, you'd do it for me."

I have a hard time not saying "That's different. I'm the man."

:-/

Do you feel bad about that? I don't think that you should*. There is one Hell of a difference between an emotional response and a considered one.

*I am assuming that you don't try to justify it to be wrong for a woman to financially support her spouse.

No, I think we're in this together.

But it seems there's some programming that says I'm supposed to be The Provider. I've described not working as feeling unmanned.

I understand cognitively that that's just silly, but that understanding hasn't reached the effective level yet. Dunno why not.

I feel it too.

Makes no sense? Absolutely.

Try and stop it? Betcha can't.

Fortunately I have in-laws and a step-daughter in frequent need of assistance, so I still get to be The Man sometimes. :-)

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.

While that might be true, there are now and where then few animals that viewed humans as prey. There was (and still is) far more danger facing most large prey. Elephants, rhinos, whales, hippos, buffalo, etc. represent deadly opponents when threatened.

This isn't to say that herbivores didn't present a problem for gatherers as well. Clearly they like many of the same plant food we do. But the incidents of gatherers facing large herbivores seems to be less than than the hunters that put themselves in such situations.

Of course, there are some other elements to consider. Division of work was not discrete in a number of hunter-gatherer societies; men and women both gathered when plants/berries/nuts were abundant and women and men both hunted when the prey herds were near - the women contributing by tracking. So I don't know who black and white that celebration of hunting was in all societies, but there certainly was some.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.

While that might be true, there are now and where then few animals that viewed humans as prey. There was (and still is) far more danger facing most large prey. Elephants, rhinos, whales, hippos, buffalo, etc. represent deadly opponents when threatened.

This isn't to say that herbivores didn't present a problem for gatherers as well. Clearly they like many of the same plant food we do. But the incidents of gatherers facing large herbivores seems to be less than than the hunters that put themselves in such situations.

Of course, there are some other elements to consider. Division of work was not discrete in a number of hunter-gatherer societies; men and women both gathered when plants/berries/nuts were abundant and women and men both hunted when the prey herds were near - the women contributing by tracking. So I don't know who black and white that celebration of hunting was in all societies, but there certainly was some.

I respectfully disagree. We still have highly attuned anti-predation instincts, which tells us that in the EEA, predation was a signifcant threat. Once homo sapiens made the step to making throwing weapons and began to hunt collectively, we may have reduced that threat slightly and that over vast amounts of time, even hunting some species to extinction (including other proto-humans!) but predation in primitive cultures is still a high mortality risk - and this includes other humans, especially rogue males.

The Vandermassen paper is very good at uncovering the bias and wishful thinking that has permeated many past social and social anthropological studies.

Having lived in africa for most of my life I can tell you that there is no advantage between man and woman in surviving in the savannah.A pack of lions would easily kill even the strongest man.I would see no advantage at all in being a man in a crocodile attack.Snakes would bite both without hesitating and both would have equal chance of dieing. A Hippo running at 60Km/h would flatten man/woman alike.Incidentely the highest number of deaths today is linked to Hippos. And yes mostely are women but only because it is the womans job to go get the water from the river or wash clothes.

The only advantage I can think of is when technology comes into play. Things like heavy armour, bows, heavy swords and the like would might put a woman at a disadvantage. I say might because it would depend on the upbringing.

Lastly the example of lions is quite interesting as the females are the ones that do all the work. They hunt and take care of young. They are less heavy than male lions but have developed teamwork as a tradeoff for muscle power.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I'd think that it's because hunting provides high protein food that gathering can't supply (except when nuts & legumes are in season).

There's also fishing of course, but maybe that was a also male role in hunter gatherer societies. On the other hand, that role might have waited until after the invention of beer.

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I think that it really depends on alot of variables. Which are being assumed.

One is the type of prey, I really can't immagine ancient man (without any even primative tecnology like stone point spears) picking dangerous prey. So let's say for hunting bunnies I would see no difference between man and woman.And even with technology one would tend to catch easy stuff. Like older or wounded animals. Nobody would want to go attack a pride of lions for meat.

Another variable is the type of tacitcs strategy used: hunting in packs has advantages and would alow for hunting larger animals with lower risk. On the other hand hunting alone also confirs advantages depending on the type of prey. Specialisation would occur if these strategies are continued for long times.

Gathering exposes you to a whole lot of other threats as you become a target by exposing yourself. The bush is full of critters that can't wait for you to come out of your cave. That's why harvesting probably was a good idea. You could gather in a controled safe area.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.

While that might be true, there are now and where then few animals that viewed humans as prey. There was (and still is) far more danger facing most large prey. Elephants, rhinos, whales, hippos, buffalo, etc. represent deadly opponents when threatened.

This isn't to say that herbivores didn't present a problem for gatherers as well. Clearly they like many of the same plant food we do. But the incidents of gatherers facing large herbivores seems to be less than than the hunters that put themselves in such situations.

Of course, there are some other elements to consider. Division of work was not discrete in a number of hunter-gatherer societies; men and women both gathered when plants/berries/nuts were abundant and women and men both hunted when the prey herds were near - the women contributing by tracking. So I don't know who black and white that celebration of hunting was in all societies, but there certainly was some.

I respectfully disagree. We still have highly attuned anti-predation instincts, which tells us that in the EEA, predation was a signifcant threat. Once homo sapiens made the step to making throwing weapons and began to hunt collectively, we may have reduced that threat slightly and that over vast amounts of time, even hunting some species to extinction (including other proto-humans!) but predation in primitive cultures is still a high mortality risk - and this includes other humans, especially rogue males.

The Vandermassen paper is very good at uncovering the bias and wishful thinking that has permeated many past social and social anthropological studies.

While I don't wholly disagree with Vandermassen or your assessment, I think there's some disconnect here. Humans have been apex predators for well over a million years. The moment we gained tool making skills we were pretty much off the menu of most other animals. A lone, naked human is a pretty weak target to be sure, but by and large we tend to clump in groups. Even when we are nomadic we travel in groups.

That said, if you have links to information on predation in primitive cultures as a high mortality risk, I'd be interested in reading about it. I've just never seen any indication that predation was a major factor in human mortality.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I think that it really depends on alot of variables. Which are being assumed.

One is the type of prey, I really can't immagine ancient man (without any even primative tecnology like stone point spears) picking dangerous prey. So let's say for hunting bunnies I would see no difference between man and woman.And even with technology one would tend to catch easy stuff. Like older or wounded animals. Nobody would want to go attack a pride of lions for meat.

Another variable is the type of tacitcs strategy used: hunting in packs has advantages and would alow for hunting larger animals with lower risk. On the other hand hunting alone also confirs advantages depending on the type of prey. Specialisation would occur if these strategies are continued for long times.

Gathering exposes you to a whole lot of other threats as you become a target by exposing yourself. The bush is full of critters that can't wait for you to come out of your cave. That's why harvesting probably was a good idea. You could gather in a controled safe area.

Early humans hunted large game. There's no speculation in this. There are plenty of records of this in fact - from paleolithic bone tools and jewelery to cave paintings and even isotopic tooth enamel analysis. This was not a recent feature. Tool use allowed our ancestors to hunt mammoths. Evidence shows that Homo erectus hunted large prey with stone tools.

I won't argue that our most distant ancestors - such as the Australopithecines - were likely more preyed upon in some frequency, but when our ancestors entered the hunter-gatherer phases that pretty much ended. My previous statement was based on that context - in hunter-gatherer societies, the threat came from hunting, not from being prey.

BTW, my family hails from South Africa and I've spent a good deal of time in the dark continent. Welkom Vriend!

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

WELL RUB ME IN DEAR FAT ($15 a pound) AND THROW ME TO THE WOLFZ.

Seriously now, the average female of the human species can pull a 0.223" trigger so where's teh argument?

......I think I'm in love.

Nothing like old fashioned values.

When the summers lasted longerAnd the men and beer were stronger...etc.

Having lived in africa for most of my life I can tell you that there is no advantage between man and woman in surviving in the savannah.A pack of lions would easily kill even the strongest man.I would see no advantage at all in being a man in a crocodile attack.Snakes would bite both without hesitating and both would have equal chance of dieing. A Hippo running at 60Km/h would flatten man/woman alike.Incidentely the highest number of deaths today is linked to Hippos. And yes mostely are women but only because it is the womans job to go get the water from the river or wash clothes.

The only advantage I can think of is when technology comes into play. Things like heavy armour, bows, heavy swords and the like would might put a woman at a disadvantage. I say might because it would depend on the upbringing.

Lastly the example of lions is quite interesting as the females are the ones that do all the work. They hunt and take care of young. They are less heavy than male lions but have developed teamwork as a tradeoff for muscle power.

I was in far northern Mozambique a couple of years ago and there were a couple of rogue lions eating their way through the local population.

Their prey, I'm guessing Disney movie goers or Impala whichever you fancy, were sadly in decline due to the encroachment of the Apple iPhone.

Villagers who would normally starve if they didn't go and cultivate the cassava root at bush plots with huts outside their village were at the mercy of these beasts particularly if they responded to the call of nature at the wee hours of the morning.

One unfortunate baby of around 6 months had her mother eaten whole next to her only leaving the hands and skull on her way to the lavatory. The lioness must have been practicing sustainability.

A couple of locals who fancied themselves as Snoop Doggy Hemingways blew the bejezeezus out of the pair with a Winchester Elephant gun.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Have some issues with both - not least Goldberg's nutty conception of evolutionary theory (pp17/8) [he did originally write it in 1973 but the it's still in the 'new' edition of 1994 - long after The Selfish Gene, so it's pretty unforgivable in a scholarly sense that he has just plain ignored contemporary data. I also have issues with Baumeister setting up straw men (am in discussions with him at the moment re this but if anyone else cwould be prepared to help me see the wood for the trees, I'd be grateful) Will set out the issues later if so..

I've been wondering for a while now just how much in the way of behaviour, or attributes (besides the naughty bits), is innately male or female, and how much is arbitrary/social/historical.

Women accused of "acting like a man" -- Thatcher springs to mind -- maybe they're just acting like the diversity of people can, now that they have slightly more liberty to do so, rather than being programmed to "act like a lady".

??

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

I've been wondering for a while now just how much in the way of behaviour, or attributes (besides the naughty bits), is innately male or female, and how much is arbitrary/social/historical.

Women accused of "acting like a man" -- Thatcher springs to mind -- maybe they're just acting like the diversity of people can, now that they have slightly more liberty to do so, rather than being programmed to "act like a lady".

the link leads to a compact illustration of average sex differences (and similarities) found in pan-cultural studies (wouldn't let me embed the pic sorry!)

Of course environment affects behaviour - the term evolutionary is basically re everything at the intersection of environment/biology.

Women in high power positions (that are typically held by men - another pan -cultural phenomenon) need to play a mans game as a matter of survival. This is because their biggest threat comes from men; a states biggest threats come from other men; patriarchy's biggest threat comes from other patriarchies. Women's influence in lower level politics can be more persuasive: see this link

Why patriarchy - why men, and not say, a matriarchy? Men stand guard against other men, not against women. The threat comes from men, not women. All female head of states learn this lesson very quickly - from Thatcher to Golda Meir. Politics is a deadly game.

Men tear each other to pieces to attain power. A woman asking men to be more 'feminine' isn't going to cut it. Alls fair in love and war - which just about covers everything.

Another way to look at it is if humans were a completely female species, a caste of big brutish (and probably infertile) females would evolve to do the kinds of dangerous work men do

I guess in an environment with limited resources, competition between tribes would be more common than co-operation. :-/

The extreme, and modern case of that being all the nations on the planet.

It may be that extending our definition of who's in the tribe, and being to plan farther ahead than the next harvest/generation, was the idea behind "If mankind is to survive, we shall require a substantially new way of thinking."

Or not. Maybe the tension/competition will just always be part of our existence. Especially since in just about every walk of life, the parameters are decided by the most aggressive participants. In short, some people just like to fight.

My sister printed a T-shirt for me for Christmas: "I'm not 'Bossy'. I just have a better idea."

eta: Elaine Morgan's been raked over the coals a lot, but one thing I think she got right was pointing out there's a difference between curiosity and aggression, viz: wondering if there's food over the next hill -- or life on other planets -- is a different kind of energy from wanting to steal the nearest tribes' wives, or nuke/enslave the planet in the name of the Queen/God. Isn't it?

Are there sub-divisions of resource acquisition and risk-taking?

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Saved in favourites under "sciency stuff" with ERV and others. Thanks, V!

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad